Innocent until tried by headline: A top TV presenter in Britain whose reputation and career were destroyed by an accusation of rape has just been cleared of the charges.

And this has led to a debate over whether those accused of rape — and not just their accusers — should have their identities withheld.

There’s a fallacy in the logic here that leads to something we don’t believe in here (well, excepting that nasty little business of suspected terrorists being arrested in secret): The law and its enforcement must be transparent to protect the accused and so the accused can face his accuser and so his justice is meted out under public scrutiny.

In the case of rape, it’s not transparent because the accuser’s name is withheld and that leads down this slippery slope.

Rape is no longer seen as the shame of the victim. It is a crime like any other and needs to be treated like any other. This case and Kobe Bryant’s lead us there.

John Leslie has already been paid over half a million pounds (about $750k) by a newspaper for a series of interviews about his ordeal. He has just today, after his clearing, been offered a

http://site-essential.com/ Kathy K

I’d be with Jackie on that if I could figure out a way to conceal both identities.

http://www.mcarthurweb.com/ Misanthropyst

Brave stand – bravo…

R C Dean

Anonymous accusations are the hallmark of police states, not functional judicial systems.
Being mugged or robbed is also humiliating and not an experience that most people care to relive in a trial. So what?

http://www.miscellaneousetc.com/ac Jackie D

Oh, by the way: John Leslie will receive at least

Geoff B

I think Jackie D hits the high point. What should become of the person who created what is now a false claim. Should she be prosecuted. Would such an action be seen as preventing other people coming forward or making it harder still for victims of rape to step forward, just in case.